Extraordinary Works in Spanish Communities: the 3/5 Supermajority, the Special Derrama and Owner Opt-Out Rights Under the LPH (2026)

How Spanish communities approve and fund major building works, when a dissenting owner can refuse to pay, and why the threshold is 3/5, not 4/8.

Extraordinary works in a Spanish comunidad de propietarios, whether a facade repair, a lift installation or a structural alteration, are governed by Article 17 of the Horizontal Property Law (Ley 49/1960, the LPH). The article sets graduated voting thresholds: a simple majority for accessibility works under Article 17.2, a 3/5 supermajority for non-conservation improvements under Article 17.4, and unanimity for title or statute modifications under Article 17.6. An owner who votes against a non-conservation improvement costing more than three ordinary monthly community fees is not obligated to pay the resulting derrama. Understanding these rules before a community vote is the difference between a funded repair and a contested levy.

What counts as extraordinary works under the LPH?

Extraordinary works in Spanish community law are any building works or installations beyond ordinary maintenance and conservation. Article 10 of the LPH defines mandatory conservation works (those necessary for the building’s structural safety, habitability and accessibility), which do not require a community vote. Everything beyond that falls under Article 17 and needs a formal agreement of the Junta de Propietarios.

The LPH does not use the term “obras extraordinarias” as a single legal category. Instead, Article 17 lists distinct work types with different voting thresholds. The categories that matter for an apartment owner are:

1. Telecommunications and renewable energy infrastructure (Article 17.1): shared telecoms infrastructure, aerothermal, geothermal and collective energy supply systems, and infrastructure for new collective energy supplies. The current text of Article 17.1, as updated by Real Decreto-ley 7/2026 of 20 March 2026 (in force 22 March 2026), retains the 1/3 majority threshold
2. Accessibility and energy efficiency works (Article 17.2): lift installation, ramp construction, barrier removal, and energy performance improvements including envelope modifications
3. New services and porterage (Article 17.3): concierge, security, surveillance and other common services of general interest
4. Innovations and improvements (Article 17.4): new installations, services or improvements not required for adequate conservation, habitability, security or accessibility, plus structural alterations such as new floors, material divisions or aggregations

The distinction between these categories is not academic. It determines the voting threshold, whether the dissident owner can opt out, and whether the reserve fund can be tapped.

What majority is needed to approve extraordinary works?

The voting threshold depends on which paragraph of Article 17 applies. The LPH sets four tiers for works-related decisions, each requiring both a headcount majority of owners and a matching majority of participation quotas (cuotas de participacion):

Work type	LPH provision	Voting threshold	Opt-out for dissenters?
Telecoms and renewable energy infrastructure	Art 17.1	1/3 of owners + 1/3 of quotas	Yes, cost not charged to non-voting owners
Accessibility, lifts, energy efficiency (under 12 monthly fees)	Art 17.2	Simple majority + simple majority of quotas	No
Porterage, concierge, surveillance, leasing common elements	Art 17.3	3/5 of total owners + 3/5 of quotas	No (binding on all)
Innovations, improvements, structural alterations (cost over 3 monthly fees)	Art 17.4	3/5 of total owners + 3/5 of quotas	Yes, if cost exceeds 3 monthly fees

The 3/5 threshold (tres quintas partes, meaning 60 per cent) applies to the most consequential category: non-conservation improvements and structural alterations under Article 17.4. This is the supermajority the brief’s working title references. It requires three fifths of all owners in the community, not just those present at the meeting, and those owners must represent three fifths of the total participation quotas. A simple majority of attendees at a second-call meeting is not sufficient for these works.

Can an owner refuse to pay the derrama for extraordinary works?

Yes, under specific conditions. Article 17.4 of the LPH provides the opt-out right that distinguishes non-conservation improvements from mandatory conservation works. The rule has two conditions that must both be met:

First, the works must be innovations, new installations, services or improvements not required for the adequate conservation, habitability, security and accessibility of the building. If the works are conservation (Article 10.1.a) or accessibility (Article 10.1.b), they are mandatory and no owner can refuse to contribute.

Second, the installation cost must exceed three ordinary monthly community fees (tres mensualidades ordinarias de gastos comunes). If the improvement costs less than three monthly fees, even a dissenting owner must pay.

When both conditions are met, the dissident owner, defined as one who voted against the agreement, is not obligated to pay and their participation quota is not modified. The community cannot deprive them of the improvement or advantage, but it cannot charge them for it either. The catch is in the second paragraph of Article 17.4: if the dissident owner later wants to participate in the advantages of the innovation, they must pay their share of the installation and maintenance costs, duly updated with the corresponding statutory legal interest (interes legal del dinero, set at 3.25 per cent for 2026, confirmed by the Banco de Espana interest rate table).

A further protection in Article 17.4 states that no innovation may be made that renders any part of the building unusable for an owner without their express consent.

Can a statutorily exempt owner refuse to pay an accessibility derrama?

No, and this is one of the most consequential recent rulings for Spanish community law. STS 844/2026 (2 June 2026, Sala de lo Civil, ECLI:ES:TS:2026:2426, recurso 7640/2021) confirmed that owners who are statutorily exempt from lift or portal costs must still contribute to accessibility works derramas. The Tribunal Supremo drew a sharp line: a statutory exemption clause covering “consumption of light for the portal and stairs” and “conservation, repair and cleaning” of those elements does not extend to works that remove architectural barriers, because accessibility is a legal obligation under Article 10.1.b that revalorises the entire building.

The case came from a 40-unit building in Oviedo where the community approved a derrama of approximately EUR 43,000 to replace portal doors with sliding doors and install a ramp to the lifts, which could not reach ground level. Three ground-floor commercial local owners and one basement owner, exempt by statute from lift and portal costs, refused to pay. The Supreme Court upheld the Audiencia Provincial’s reversal of the first-instance judgment and confirmed the locals must contribute, applying by analogy its earlier jurisprudence on lift installations and cota cero adaptations (STS 202/2014, 381/2018, 216/2019, 276/2021 and 152/2024).

The doctrine is twofold. First, exemption clauses are interpreted restrictively: what is not expressly exempted must be paid. Second, accessibility works are not ordinary conservation of an element the exempt owner does not use; they are a legal obligation of universal accessibility that benefits and revalorises the whole building. The court noted that the community approved only the works strictly necessary for accessibility, rejecting the locals’ argument that the essential works cost only around EUR 19,500 and the rest were improvements.

This ruling has direct implications for commercial premises, ground-floor units and basements across Spain, particularly in Costa del Sol communities where mixed-use buildings with commercial locals are common. An owner who assumed their statutory exemption shielded them from all portal-related derramas now knows it does not cover accessibility works under Article 10.1.b.

How do accessibility and energy efficiency works differ?

Accessibility works under Article 17.2 operate under a more permissive regime than non-conservation improvements under Article 17.4. The rationale is that Spanish law treats barrier removal and energy performance as matters of public interest, not optional amenities.

Article 17.2, as amended by Ley 10/2022 (in force 15 June 2022) and Real Decreto-ley 8/2023 (in force January 2024), requires only a simple majority of owners representing a simple majority of participation quotas for accessibility works, lift installations and energy efficiency improvements, provided the annual cost (net of subsidies and after financing) does not exceed twelve ordinary monthly community fees.

The critical difference from Article 17.4 is that the dissident owner does not have the opt-out right. Once the community validly adopts the agreement, the community is obligated to pay the costs even if they exceed twelve monthly fees. The cost of these works, or the amounts needed to service loans taken out to fund them, are treated as general expenses (gastos generales) under Article 9.1.e for all owners. The reserve fund (fondo de reserva) may also be used to finance these works under Article 9.1.f, as amended by Ley 10/2022.

The 2023 reform (RDL 8/2023, Disposicion final quinta) added energy envelope modifications, terrace closures and facade modifications for energy efficiency to the categories requiring only a simple majority under Article 17.2, making it easier for communities to undertake renovation works tied to the EU recovery fund objectives.

How has the renewable energy infrastructure threshold evolved?

Article 17.1, which governs shared telecoms and renewable energy infrastructure (including aerotermia and geotermia), has undergone a turbulent recent history that illustrates how Spanish decree-law reform works in practice. The original 2013 text set a 1/3 majority threshold for these installations. Real Decreto-ley 7/2025 of 24 June 2025 (the “decreto antiapagones”, BOE-A-2025-12857) modified Article 17.1 to further facilitate aerotermia and geotermia adoption, but Congress declined to convalidate the decree and it was derogated on 22 July 2025 (BOE-A-2025-15313), reverting Article 17.1 to its prior text. Real Decreto-ley 7/2026 of 20 March 2026 (BOE-A-2026-6544, in force 22 March 2026) then re-enacted the modification, and the BOE consolidated text was updated to reflect this on 21 March 2026.

The practical takeaway for an owner is that the current threshold for renewable energy infrastructure under Article 17.1 is 1/3 of owners representing 1/3 of quotas, and the cost cannot be charged to owners who did not vote in favour. If a non-voting owner later wants access to the new infrastructure, they must pay their share plus statutory interest.

How is the special derrama financed and who pays it?

A derrama is an extraordinary levy on owners to fund works beyond the ordinary community budget. Article 17.11 of the LPH establishes a key rule for derrama liability: derramas for the payment of improvements, whether already made or yet to be made, are charged to whoever is the owner at the moment the payment becomes due (exigibilidad).

This means that if a community votes for a facade renovation in March and an owner sells their apartment in June before the derrama is formally called, the buyer, not the seller, pays the levy. The seller who voted for the works bears no liability unless they still own the property when the payment falls due.

The financing routes available to a community for extraordinary works are:

1. Reserve fund (fondo de reserva): the community may use the statutory reserve fund under Article 9.1.f to pay for conservation, repair, rehabilitation, accessibility and energy efficiency works. The fund must hold at least 10 per cent of the last ordinary annual budget (raised from 5 per cent by RDL 7/2019).
2. Special derrama: if the reserve fund is insufficient, the community levies a special contribution proportional to each owner’s participation quota. For non-conservation improvements, dissenting owners who meet the Article 17.4 conditions are exempt.
3. Bank loan: the community may take out a loan to finance the works, with repayment treated as a general expense binding all owners.

The LPH does not prescribe a specific procedure for calling a derrama beyond the community vote. In practice, the administrador de fincas calculates each owner’s share based on their cuota de participacion, the community approves the payment schedule at the same meeting that approves the works, and the derrama is typically collected in one or several instalments.

What if owners disagree about the nature of the works?

The classification of works as conservation (mandatory, no opt-out), accessibility (simple majority, no opt-out) or non-conservation improvement (3/5 majority, opt-out available) determines both the voting threshold and the financial consequences. Disputes are common because an owner may argue that a proposed facade renovation is a conservation work (which they must pay for) when the community classifies it as an improvement (which they could opt out of), or vice versa.

Article 17.10 of the LPH addresses this directly: in case of discrepancy about the nature of the works, the Junta de Propietarios resolves the matter. The interested parties may also request arbitration or a technical opinion (dictamen tecnico) under the terms established by law.

If an owner disagrees with a validly adopted agreement, Article 18 of the LPH provides the challenge route. An action to impugn a community agreement must be filed within three months of the meeting (or one year if the agreement is contrary to law or the community statutes). The action does not suspend execution of the agreement unless a judge orders suspension as a precautionary measure. This is the mechanism covered in detail in the community dispute resolution guide.

How do absent owners factor into the vote?

Article 17.8 of the LPH provides an important rule for communities where attendance at meetings is low. Unless the law expressly provides that costs cannot be charged to non-voting owners (as in Article 17.1 for telecoms), or the works are for private benefit, owners who are absent from the meeting but duly cited are counted as having voted in favour if they do not communicate their disagreement to the secretary within 30 calendar days of being informed of the agreement.

This means a community seeking a 3/5 supermajority for extraordinary works under Article 17.4 can count absent owners as supportive, provided the notification procedure under Article 9 was followed. The 30-day silent-assent window is a powerful mechanism for overcoming absenteeism in communities with many non-resident owners, a common situation on the Costa del Sol where foreign buyers may not attend AGMs in person. The community meeting minutes guide covers how the acta documents these notifications.

A worked example: a facade renovation in a 40-unit community

Consider a comunidad de propietarios with 40 apartments in Marbella. The community needs a facade renovation costing EUR 120,000. The ordinary annual budget is EUR 48,000 (EUR 4,000 per month). The reserve fund holds EUR 4,800 (10 per cent of the budget).

At the AGM, 25 owners (62.5 per cent of the 40 total) representing 63 per cent of the quotas vote in favour. The threshold under Article 17.4 is 3/5 (60 per cent) of total owners and 3/5 of quotas, so the agreement is validly adopted.

Ten owners voted against. The cost of EUR 120,000 exceeds three monthly fees (EUR 12,000), so the opt-out conditions are met. The ten dissenting owners are not obligated to pay their share. The remaining 30 owners, plus any dissenting owners who later wish to benefit, bear the full cost. If the reserve fund is applied, the community must replenish it at the start of the next budgetary year under Article 9.1.f.

If instead the same works were classified as conservation (necessary for the building’s structural safety under Article 10.1.a), all 40 owners would be obligated regardless of how they voted, and no opt-out would apply. And under the STS 844/2026 doctrine, any owner statutorily exempt from specific costs would still have to contribute if the works fell under the accessibility category of Article 10.1.b.

What should a property buyer check about pending derramas?

A buyer of a Spanish property should ask the community for a debt certificate (certificado de deudas) before completion. Under Article 9.1.e, the buyer inherits liability for unpaid community debts, including derramas, for the current year plus the three preceding calendar years. The notary must request this certificate at completion under Article 9.1.e’s final paragraph, and the seller (transmitente) must provide it, declaring whether any community debts are owed.

For pending derramas, the question is whether the derrama was approved before or after the sale. Under Article 17.11, if the payment became due before the sale, the seller is liable. If it becomes due after the sale, the buyer is liable. The buyer should ask the community whether any extraordinary works have been approved but not yet billed, and whether any derrama is pending. The community debt guide covers the inherited-liability rules in detail.

For the broader framework of community governance and voting, the community governance guide covers the AGM procedures, quorum rules and the full set of majority thresholds. The reserve fund guide explains how the fondo de reserva interacts with extraordinary works financing. The Horizontal Property Law guide provides the statutory overview, and the community fees guide covers ordinary community costs.

This guide is general information, not legal or tax advice. Rules change and individual circumstances differ. Verify current requirements with an independent lawyer (abogado) or tax advisor (gestor/asesor fiscal) before acting.